>>Ask *James Jacobs* ALL your Questions Here!<<


Off-Topic Discussions

18,651 to 18,700 of 76,742 << first < prev | 369 | 370 | 371 | 372 | 373 | 374 | 375 | 376 | 377 | 378 | 379 | next > last >>

James Jacobs wrote:
ulgulanoth wrote:
So in Golarion its possible for a caster to teleport into a plane and talk to a god? Like talking to Shelyn or Asmodeus?

No, because teleport does not allow a spellcaster to cross from one plane to another.

You could, in theory, use plane shift or gate to achieve that goal... but deities have the power to redirect such approaches, so you'd only be able to talk to a deity like this if the deity wants to talk to you. In most cases they'd prefer you to use commune.

The Chaotic Evil ones, if just for the fun of killing someone who came to see them.


got one for you James Jacobs
cant find an answer elsewhere

a knife master rogue takes acid splash as a minor magic trick and uses the acid orb spell to make a sneak attack.

acid splash:

CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S

EFFECT
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect one missile of acid
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no

DESCRIPTION
You fire a small orb of acid at the target. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to hit your target. The orb deals 1d3 points of acid damage. This acid disappears after 1 round.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/a/acid-splash

knife master sneak stab:
A knife master focuses her ability to deal sneak attack damage with daggers and similar weapons to such a degree that she can deal more sneak attack damage with those weapons at the expense of sneak attacks with other weapons. When she makes a sneak attack with a dagger, kerambit, kukri, punching daggers, starknife, or swordbreaker dagger, she uses d8s to roll sneak attack damage instead of d6s. For sneak attacks with all other weapons, she uses d4s instead of d6s.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/archetypes/paizo---rogue -archetypes/knife-master

does using the acid splash spell to make a sneak attack deal damage in d4 because its not a knife, or is it not effected by the sneak stab restriction because its not a "weapon" and thus not restricted by the knife master limitation?

Im inclined to say its d4 with any sneak attack that does NOT use a knife because it seems like using the acid splash to deal d6 kind of negates the whole penalty balance of the knife master. but I dont want to restrict my player unfairly.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

The Minis Maniac wrote:
James I know I asked this question months back but now with Shattered Star on the horizon, can you please tell me if there will be at least one Rune Giant in Shattered Star. You see I will be getting multiple Rune Giant minis and would love to use them in multiple APs.

Welllll...

Spoiler:
Probably.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
blue_the_wolf wrote:

got one for you James Jacobs

cant find an answer elsewhere

a knife master rogue takes acid splash as a minor magic trick and uses the acid orb spell to make a sneak attack.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

does using the acid splash spell to make a sneak attack deal damage in d4 because its not a knife, or is it not effected by the sneak stab restriction because its not a "weapon" and thus not restricted by the knife master limitation?

Im inclined to say its d4 with any sneak attack that does NOT use a knife because it seems like using the acid splash to deal d6 kind of negates the whole penalty balance of the knife master. but I dont want to restrict my player unfairly.

Acid splash is not a knife, and therefore gets the reduced sneak attack damage.


I was under the impression Acid Splash couldn't be affected by Sneak Attack because it's not a ray. It's largely a blob of acid encased in magic, then thrown at the enemy like a water balloon. It pops and deals 1d3 points of acid. Ray of Frost, however, is a ray, and therefore a weapon, so it deals Sneak Attack damage.

At least, that's my understanding.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:

I was under the impression Acid Splash couldn't be affected by Sneak Attack because it's not a ray. It's largely a blob of acid encased in magic, then thrown at the enemy like a water balloon. It pops and deals 1d3 points of acid. Ray of Frost, however, is a ray, and therefore a weapon, so it deals Sneak Attack damage.

At least, that's my understanding.

If you make an attack roll with something, you can sneak attack with it (with the exception of splash weapons, which specifically can NOT deal sneak attack damage).


James Jacobs wrote:
harmor wrote:

2. What about with 25-feet of Stone and Earth between you? Basically do you need line-of-effect?

2) You need line of effect for pretty much everything. I can't think of an exception, really.

So if you are the target of a Cackle of some on-going effect (e.g. Misfortune), and you go around a corner and the witch doesn't follow you to get line-of-effect the hex will end even if you and the witch are within 30-feet?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
harmor wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
harmor wrote:

2. What about with 25-feet of Stone and Earth between you? Basically do you need line-of-effect?

2) You need line of effect for pretty much everything. I can't think of an exception, really.

So if you are the target of a Cackle of some on-going effect (e.g. Misfortune), and you go around a corner and the witch doesn't follow you to get line-of-effect the hex will end even if you and the witch are within 30-feet?

Once the cackle affects you, it runs for a round, regardless of where you are in relation to the cackling witch.

If you go around the corner and the witch doesn't follow you, she can't affect you with cackle on her next move, but until that round is up, the previous cackle still affects you.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As a dinosaur lover, how does this make you feel?

Contributor

Rhys Grey wrote:
As a dinosaur lover, how does this make you feel?

I babysat a neighbor's kid once. We put that show on to sate him because he loved it. My brain hurt by the end.

Time Travel is NEVER a good idea. Too many brain-issues. On the plus side, it may be a mirror into James' fantasy world where dinosaurs are all still alive and well.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Rhys Grey wrote:
As a dinosaur lover, how does this make you feel?

I babysat a neighbor's kid once. We put that show on to sate him because he loved it. My brain hurt by the end.

Time Travel is NEVER a good idea. Too many brain-issues. On the plus side, it may be a mirror into James' fantasy world where dinosaurs are all still alive and well.

Heh, tell me about it. My daughter loves that show and it drives me nuts sometimes.


Would Cure Disease correct microencaphaly? Or would that require a Regenerate?

The Exchange

James Jacobs wrote:


In fact, if you fail at being a worshiper of a good deity or a lawful deity or any deity, you could well end up being punished in Hell. It varies, depending on a lot of circumstances.

So, from a logical point of view, you are just better of not worshipping any deity at all, right? at the risk of punishment upon failuare, why would you devout your life to any god?

I mean, if you just live your life parallel to the gods (not interacting with them in any way), you would be judged as an actual person, not as a follower to a code of superficially imposed values and beliefes. That way if you failed in life you will not be doomed to suffering in hell or anything like that... right?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Rhys Grey wrote:
As a dinosaur lover, how does this make you feel?

Angry and betrayed.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Michael Radagast wrote:
Would Cure Disease correct microencaphaly? Or would that require a Regenerate?

First off... it's called remove disease these days... (your 1st edition is showing!).

It would certainly remove the disease and prevent it from doing more damage, but just as the spell doesn't fix ability score damage, it would not fix any physical damage the disease has caused. For that you would indeed need something like restoration or heal or greater restoration or regenerate.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


In fact, if you fail at being a worshiper of a good deity or a lawful deity or any deity, you could well end up being punished in Hell. It varies, depending on a lot of circumstances.

So, from a logical point of view, you are just better of not worshipping any deity at all, right? at the risk of punishment upon failuare, why would you devout your life to any god?

I mean, if you just live your life parallel to the gods (not interacting with them in any way), you would be judged as an actual person, not as a follower to a code of superficially imposed values and beliefes. That way if you failed in life you will not be doomed to suffering in hell or anything like that... right?

The chances of reward and punishment are equal wether or not you worship a deity, actually. The main difference being that if you worship a deity, your reward is more tightly focused on that deity's area of influence—by worshiping a deity devoutly and doing well, you're essentially putting in a "request" as to where you want to be "sent" in the afterlife. If you don't worship a deity, you're increasingly leaving that choice up to Pharasma, who will pick your final reward/punishment based on other factors of your life.

If you do as you say and live a life parallel to the gods, you still do things in your life that advance divine agendas. Murders, for example, make society better for evil deities like Norgorber and Shax, while saving small towns from goblin raids make society better for good deities like Erastil and Desna.

AKA: Not worshiping a deity is not an automatic "get out of Hell" card. You can still end up there if you were a bad person.

Sczarni

Mechalibur wrote:
Stratagemini wrote:
Aren't whales and Kraken bigger than Redwoods?

The largest redwood documented is over 3 times longer than the largest whale documented.

And Kraken aren't real (unfortunately)

I know I am back tracking, but had to point out that the largest single living organism is a fungus and it is over 3 miles in size. (Source: Armillaria solidipes is fungus name and its found in Malheur National Forest in Oregon)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

ossian666 wrote:
Mechalibur wrote:
Stratagemini wrote:
Aren't whales and Kraken bigger than Redwoods?

The largest redwood documented is over 3 times longer than the largest whale documented.

And Kraken aren't real (unfortunately)

I know I am back tracking, but had to point out that the largest single living organism is a fungus and it is over 3 miles in size. (Source: Armillaria solidipes is fungus name and its found in Malheur National Forest in Oregon)

Which is probably why the actual quote from James was "one of the largest living things on the planet."


ossian666 wrote:
Mechalibur wrote:
Stratagemini wrote:
Aren't whales and Kraken bigger than Redwoods?

The largest redwood documented is over 3 times longer than the largest whale documented.

And Kraken aren't real (unfortunately)

I know I am back tracking, but had to point out that the largest single living organism is a fungus and it is over 3 miles in size. (Source: Armillaria solidipes is fungus name and its found in Malheur National Forest in Oregon)

There is some dispute according to wikipedia. The mushroom is not proven to be a single organism yet. Meanwhile, aspen groves can get pretty huge, are proven interconnected, and beat out the mushroom on volume and mass, though not area, even if the mushroom is completely connected.

The redwood is the largest single stalk tree, and its trunk alone is estimated to be over 1/4 of the weight of the entire aspen grove. O_o

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Also, something that's over 350 feet tall is a lot more impressive to look at than something that's mostly and/or entirely buried.


What are the rewards and punishments after you die, if you worship an Eldest of one of the Great Old Ones?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alakqualyn wrote:
What are the rewards and punishments after you die, if you worship an Eldest of one of the Great Old Ones?

Eldest: End up in the First World as a petitioner or strange fey spirit or fuel for some weird soul-eating something or reincarnate or something like that.

Great Old Ones: Likely end up going to Hell or the Abyss or somewhere in the evil outer planes to be tormented. The Great Old Ones have no real use for worshipers and what happens to them after they die is irrelevant and uninteresting to them. EXCEPTION: In some cases, they absorb the souls of those who worship them too fervently—not necessarily on purpose, but usually because the cultist gets too close. In this case, they never go to the Boneyard at all—their souls just stop, are destroyed, are gone. This is not something Pharasma likes, but it happens on a MUCH smaller scale than the daemons, so she doesn't really pay nearly as much attention to it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Michael Radagast wrote:
Would Cure Disease correct microencaphaly? Or would that require a Regenerate?

First off... it's called remove disease these days... (your 1st edition is showing!).

It would certainly remove the disease and prevent it from doing more damage, but just as the spell doesn't fix ability score damage, it would not fix any physical damage the disease has caused. For that you would indeed need something like restoration or heal or greater restoration or regenerate.

If the problem is a genetic defect it can be cured with remove disease/heal/restoration/regeneration? or it will require a miracle or wish?

As I see it the healing and restoration spells will return the subject to perfect health for his genetic make-up and cure accrued damage from diseases causing progressive damage (like Huntington's chorea), but it will not change you genetic make-up, so a genetic malady will start damaging you again after the spell has "cured" you.
Wish like magic, or some other effect that can change you in a permanent way, will be needed to cure the target permanently.

It seem more appropriate for storytelling too, creating some disease that is very hard to cure. A god example could be haemophilia, were the patient can be kept alive and in relatively good shape if he has constant access to healing spells but can't be permanently cured by them alone.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:

If the problem is a genetic defect it can be cured with remove disease/heal/restoration/regeneration? or it will require a miracle or wish?

As I see it the healing and restoration spells will return the subject to perfect health for his genetic make-up and cure accrued damage from diseases causing progressive damage (like Huntington's chorea), but it will not change you genetic make-up, so a genetic malady will start damaging you again after the spell has "cured" you.
Wish like magic, or some other effect that can change you in a permanent way, will be needed to cure the target permanently.

It seem more appropriate for storytelling too, creating some disease that is very hard to cure. A god example could be haemophilia, were the patient can be kept alive and in relatively good shape if he has constant access to healing spells but can't be permanently cured by them alone.

If the genetic defect is causing constant damage, then yes, remove disease should fix it. Although the DC will probably be VERY high. (Remember, if you want a disease that's hard to heal in Pathfinder... just give it a high save DC—remove disease isn't automatic.)


Is Asmodeus a contract devil from Bestiary 3, or at least would he do contracts like them only on deity level stuff? I ask cause I have an idea for a character that is an oracle who obtained her powers from a contract with Asmodeus when she was a naive child (raised in an Isger orphanage). She now realizes he got the better end of the deal (especially since she's an oracle with a curse, not a cleric) and no longer actively worships him, but still follows the Lawful portion of his tenets.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
Is Asmodeus a contract devil from Bestiary 3, or at least would he do contracts like them only on deity level stuff? I ask cause I have an idea for a character that is an oracle who obtained her powers from a contract with Asmodeus when she was a naive child (raised in an Isger orphanage). She now realizes he got the better end of the deal (especially since she's an oracle with a curse, not a cleric) and no longer actively worships him, but still follows the Lawful portion of his tenets.

Asmodeus is not a contract devil. He's a unique archdevil who happens also to be a deity.

If you want to include an Asmodeus contract in your game, you can certainly look at the raw mechanics as devil contracts exist with the contract devil as a starting place, though.


Does the fearless ability of the sorcerer's orc bloodline render a character immune to the Phantamal Killer spell?


James Jacobs wrote:
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
Is Asmodeus a contract devil from Bestiary 3, or at least would he do contracts like them only on deity level stuff? I ask cause I have an idea for a character that is an oracle who obtained her powers from a contract with Asmodeus when she was a naive child (raised in an Isger orphanage). She now realizes he got the better end of the deal (especially since she's an oracle with a curse, not a cleric) and no longer actively worships him, but still follows the Lawful portion of his tenets.

Asmodeus is not a contract devil. He's a unique archdevil who happens also to be a deity.

If you want to include an Asmodeus contract in your game, you can certainly look at the raw mechanics as devil contracts exist with the contract devil as a starting place, though.

Ah, ok yeah that's kinda what I thought, just when I saw the contract devils it sooo made me think of him, so I thought maybe they might be like modeled after him somewhat.

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

It's been pointed out to me that Chelaxians share more physical traits with the Azlanti than Taldans do (receded hairlines, thin noses, sharp features). Was it intended that one group demonstrate stronger Azlanti descent than the other?

How do the Hellknights feel towards romantic relationships? Marriage and children?

Do the Hellknights wear anything over their armor that distinguishes the various ranks?


I have three related questions about arcane/divine spells and alignment.

1. If a cleric chooses to channel negative energy then later changes their alignment to good over the course of the game, what happens?

2. Does a spell's alignment, like for example Animate Dead is an evil spell, matter to a wizard? A friend of mine is insisting that a Lawful Good Necromancer WIZARD casting Animate Dead is an EVIL act no matter what reason or type of undead he's using it to create even if he has permission to animate a town's dead to protect the town.

3. Can a good WIZARD summon a succubus with Summon Monster?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

The Grandfather wrote:
Does the fearless ability of the sorcerer's orc bloodline render a character immune to the Phantamal Killer spell?

Phantasmal killer is a fear effect. Anything that renders you immune to fear by definition makes you immune to phantasmal killer.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Calder Rooney wrote:

It's been pointed out to me that Chelaxians share more physical traits with the Azlanti than Taldans do (receded hairlines, thin noses, sharp features). Was it intended that one group demonstrate stronger Azlanti descent than the other?

How do the Hellknights feel towards romantic relationships? Marriage and children?

Do the Hellknights wear anything over their armor that distinguishes the various ranks?

Perhaps.

Depends on the order—some like them, some don't.

Armor's the big thing, but weapons count as well.


I've never quite understood why golems have that weird immunity to magic quality to them (other than the age-old reason of "because they did it in older versions of the game). Do you know of any in-world reasons for this immunity or should I just kinda hand wave it as a quirk of the process for making the golem?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:

I have three related questions about arcane/divine spells and alignment.

1. If a cleric chooses to channel negative energy then later changes their alignment to good over the course of the game, what happens?

2. Does a spell's alignment, like for example Animate Dead is an evil spell, matter to a wizard? A friend of mine is insisting that a Lawful Good Necromancer WIZARD casting Animate Dead is an EVIL act no matter what reason or type of undead he's using it to create even if he has permission to animate a town's dead to protect the town.

3. Can a good WIZARD summon a succubus with Summon Monster?

1) He'd switch to channeling positive energy.

2) A spell's alignment only matters to a wizard if that wizard wants to maintain, over the course of his/her career, a non-evil alignment. Casting spells with the evil descriptor now and then, as long as the spells are used for good purposes and aren't relied upon that often, generally does not result in alignment shifts... but it certainly could. It's really up to the GM. In the specific case about animate undead used to protect a town, that treads VERY CLOSE to an evil act. It's desecration of the dead, and I find it hard to believe that everyone in a town will be okay with this first of all. Second of all, those undead are evil, and the chances that one of them will get away from the wizard's control (say, if he dies) and then runs amok are pretty high. A good aligned wizard would look for another way to protect the town if he wants to be thought of as a good guy and remain good aligned. Part of what makes a (ANY) good wizard necromancer a GOOD necromancer, in any case, is the simple fact that he chooses NOT to use spells with evil descriptors. At best, a wizard who uses evil spells is neutral, not good.

3) Yes, but the succubus would certainly try to cause evil and create chaos and havoc as long as she were able. Again... see #2 above—a wizard who really is interested in being good had better act good, and that means choosing to summon angels or azatas or archons or whatever instead of demons.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Forbiddenlightbulb wrote:
I've never quite understood why golems have that weird immunity to magic quality to them (other than the age-old reason of "because they did it in older versions of the game). Do you know of any in-world reasons for this immunity or should I just kinda hand wave it as a quirk of the process for making the golem?

Sometimes the answer "because they did in older versions of the game" is the only answer that's really necessary.


Forbiddenlightbulb wrote:

I've never quite understood why golems have that weird immunity to magic quality to them (other than the age-old reason of "because they did it in older versions of the game). Do you know of any in-world reasons for this immunity or should I just kinda hand wave it as a quirk of the process for making the golem?

Oh no, something my super-Wizard can't beat but the stupid Fighter can. </sarcasm>

James Jacobs wrote:

Sometimes the answer "because they did in older versions of the game" is the only answer that's really necessary.

Unless a rule/method no longer exist?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Void Munchkin wrote:
Forbiddenlightbulb wrote:

I've never quite understood why golems have that weird immunity to magic quality to them (other than the age-old reason of "because they did it in older versions of the game). Do you know of any in-world reasons for this immunity or should I just kinda hand wave it as a quirk of the process for making the golem?

Oh no, something my super-Wizard can't beat but the stupid Fighter can. </sarcasm>

James Jacobs wrote:

Sometimes the answer "because they did in older versions of the game" is the only answer that's really necessary.

Unless a rule/method no longer exist?

Actually, having monsters in the game that force spellcasters to get creative or allow non-spellcasters to excel is a good thing, and golems are great at that.


James Jacobs wrote:


2) A spell's alignment only matters to a wizard if that wizard wants to maintain, over the course of his/her career, a non-evil alignment. Casting spells with the evil descriptor now and then, as long as the spells are used for good purposes and aren't relied upon that often, generally does not result in alignment shifts... but it certainly could. It's really up to the GM. In the specific case about animate undead used to protect a town, that treads VERY CLOSE to an evil act. It's desecration of the dead, and I find it hard to believe that everyone in a town will be okay with this first of all. Second of all, those undead are evil, and the chances that one of them will get away from the wizard's control (say, if he dies) and then runs amok are pretty high. A good aligned wizard would look for another way to protect the town if he wants to be thought of as a good guy and remain good aligned. Part of what makes a (ANY) good wizard necromancer a GOOD necromancer, in any case, is the simple fact that he chooses NOT to use spells with evil descriptors. At best, a wizard who uses evil spells is neutral, not good.

Ok, then a follow up question in regards to the spell Infernal Healing. It has a material component of a drop of devil's blood or a dose of unholy water and therefore is evil. Now, no price is given for this, so I assume Eschew Materials would work (and if it would not, what IS the price for those components??). The spell would still be evil, but as it's a healing spell would using it regularly (especially with Eschew Materials) be a problem for a neutral or even good oracle/sorcerer/wizard?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


2) A spell's alignment only matters to a wizard if that wizard wants to maintain, over the course of his/her career, a non-evil alignment. Casting spells with the evil descriptor now and then, as long as the spells are used for good purposes and aren't relied upon that often, generally does not result in alignment shifts... but it certainly could. It's really up to the GM. In the specific case about animate undead used to protect a town, that treads VERY CLOSE to an evil act. It's desecration of the dead, and I find it hard to believe that everyone in a town will be okay with this first of all. Second of all, those undead are evil, and the chances that one of them will get away from the wizard's control (say, if he dies) and then runs amok are pretty high. A good aligned wizard would look for another way to protect the town if he wants to be thought of as a good guy and remain good aligned. Part of what makes a (ANY) good wizard necromancer a GOOD necromancer, in any case, is the simple fact that he chooses NOT to use spells with evil descriptors. At best, a wizard who uses evil spells is neutral, not good.

Ok, then a follow up question in regards to the spell Infernal Healing. It has a material component of a drop of devil's blood or a dose of unholy water and therefore is evil. Now, no price is given for this, so I assume Eschew Materials would work (and if it would not, what IS the price for those components??). The spell would still be evil, but as it's a healing spell would using it regularly (especially with Eschew Materials) be a problem for a neutral or even good oracle/sorcerer/wizard?

Eschew Materials would indeed work... but the spell still has the Evil descriptor.

In fact... the fact that the spell uses infernal energies to provide healing is very much in line with the way Asmodeus's evil works—it's very seductive and might SEEM like a good idea... but it's still from the devil.


Do you read Kobold Quarterly?


This isn't a debate settlement, or anything, just a question that came up in Items for Savvy Adventurer's thread. The goal is to create items that are CRB legal, so items with very little tweaking or GM approval, that could appear in a book.

Anyway, under Magic Item Creatin rules, it says any item that doesn't take up a slot on the body, has it's value doubled. But a couple posters pointed out that there are a lot of magical items that don't apply this rule, and it only seems to apply to items that have a similar, slotted item, like Ioun Stones.

I reverse engineered a couple items, like the Lantern of Revealing*, or Campfire Bead**, and I couldn't really find any 'slotless' items that actually had the doubled price for being slotless.

So my question is, does the slotless modifier only apply to items that have a slotted equivalent, like how Ioun Stones often have a body slot equivalent? Or should the modifier be applied to all items, and the slotless items printed ignored this and were approved by the Devs/Editors because Magic Item Creation is more art than science?

I'm not saying the Devs/Editors made mistakes, just wondering on how that modifier should be used.

Lantern of Revealing:
This item seems to be CL 5 * SL 3 * 2,000 = 30,000 gp, which ignored the 1 minute per level modifier and the slotless modifier which would put the lantern at 60,000 gp and 120,000 gp respectively.

Campfire Bead:
This item seems to be (CL 1 * SL 1 * 2000 * 2) / 5) * 0.9 which will equal 720 gp, the price of the bead, but it also ignores the slotless modifier.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Cheapy wrote:
Do you read Kobold Quarterly?

Absolutely.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Tels wrote:

This isn't a debate settlement, or anything, just a question that came up in Items for Savvy Adventurer's thread. The goal is to create items that are CRB legal, so items with very little tweaking or GM approval, that could appear in a book.

Anyway, under Magic Item Creatin rules, it says any item that doesn't take up a slot on the body, has it's value doubled. But a couple posters pointed out that there are a lot of magical items that don't apply this rule, and it only seems to apply to items that have a similar, slotted item, like Ioun Stones.

I reverse engineered a couple items, like the Lantern of Revealing*, or Campfire Bead**, and I couldn't really find any 'slotless' items that actually had the doubled price for being slotless.

So my question is, does the slotless modifier only apply to items that have a slotted equivalent, like how Ioun Stones often have a body slot equivalent? Or should the modifier be applied to all items, and the slotless items printed ignored this and were approved by the Devs/Editors because Magic Item Creation is more art than science?

I'm not saying the Devs/Editors made mistakes, just wondering on how that modifier should be used.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

The guidelines for pricing magic items are just that: Guidelines.

Don't forget the step of comparing the price of a new item to existing items—if one of the two seems like a MUCH better bargain for the money, then one of the items is overpriced or one of the items is underpriced.

The guideline for "slotless" items actually applies to things that normally take up a body item slot, like a ring or a belt or something like that. Items that don't take up a slot at all in the first place don't have a slot to give up in the first place, and thus don't count.


James Jacobs wrote:
Tels wrote:

This isn't a debate settlement, or anything, just a question that came up in Items for Savvy Adventurer's thread. The goal is to create items that are CRB legal, so items with very little tweaking or GM approval, that could appear in a book.

Anyway, under Magic Item Creatin rules, it says any item that doesn't take up a slot on the body, has it's value doubled. But a couple posters pointed out that there are a lot of magical items that don't apply this rule, and it only seems to apply to items that have a similar, slotted item, like Ioun Stones.

I reverse engineered a couple items, like the Lantern of Revealing*, or Campfire Bead**, and I couldn't really find any 'slotless' items that actually had the doubled price for being slotless.

So my question is, does the slotless modifier only apply to items that have a slotted equivalent, like how Ioun Stones often have a body slot equivalent? Or should the modifier be applied to all items, and the slotless items printed ignored this and were approved by the Devs/Editors because Magic Item Creation is more art than science?

I'm not saying the Devs/Editors made mistakes, just wondering on how that modifier should be used.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

The guidelines for pricing magic items are just that: Guidelines.

Don't forget the step of comparing the price of a new item to existing items—if one of the two seems like a MUCH better bargain for the money, then one of the items is overpriced or one of the items is underpriced.

The guideline for "slotless" items actually applies to things that normally take up a body item slot, like a ring or a belt or something like that. Items that don't take up a slot at all in the first place don't have a slot to give up in the first place, and thus don't count.

Thanks! I've posted items acorss 5 different boards, and no one had ever pointed that out to me before. I'm glad it has though, because some ideas I've got floating around are now, suddenly, feasible. Like in the thread I mentioned, I rolled up the Marauder's Map from Harry Potter, but at 130,000 gp, it's not likely to be used outside of a very wealthy nation, and/or, very paranoid*.

*What nation fits this description? I was thinking maybe Thuvia?


Hi James.
Crossbows in pathfinder seem too worse than the bows, but history teaches us that it is not like.
The only way to make crossbows really powerfull, such as bows, is the double crossbow (APG) in the hands of a crossbowman (fighter archetype, APG), preacher (inquisitor archetype, UM), urban barbarian (UC). He is the true sniper.
But the double crossbow needs some clarifications.
Need I to spend two times the money for deal fire damage with both bolts?
I think not, the double crossbow is the manyshot version for the crossbows. For this, I think that with vital strike I must apply two times this feat, because it's not a precision-based damage.
If it's true and I use devastating strike is the maximum bonus +6 for each bolt, or for the total (maximum +12)?
If I use a ranged domain power with a conductive double crossbow, have I to spent 4 uses of the power?
Therefore, was designed for this the double crossbow? I hope so, really.


Actually, history teaches us that crossbows were better to use because it took very little training to use a crossbow. To be a good archer required lots of practice and time to build up the muscles required to shoot a bow. Most crossbows were fairly easy to use, and it was easier to hand peasants crossbows and tell them how high to aim it, than it was to train true bowmen.

Granted, one could theoretically hand people bows and do the same thing, but the people using the bow would tire out quicker than those using a crossbow, unless they were trained in it's use.

This is why crossbows are simple weapons, and bows are martial weapons. History shows bows required more training, hence the increase in difficulty in the game.

[Edit] Not only that, crossbows were easier to use in smaller spaces. When storming a castle, or shooting out of the cramped castle pathways, you don't want to be using a 5 ft tall stick that requires significant arm movement, when you can just pull out a 2-3 ft long device and pull a trigger. If you were the front lines, you could hand the crossbow back, while someone hands you another, while they reload it.

I think there was a scene in LotRs that adequately showed this. Orcs made a hole in a door, stuck some crossbows in, pulled the trigger, and killed the initial defenders.


The crossbows have a shooting power at or above the bows. And a pair of bolts, that hits at the same time in the same location on the body, are devastating.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I have a few unrelated questions this time.

1) How common is the knowledge to perform Ioun Stone implantation? Do only a few people know about it, or could anybody who's skilled enough to make the checks try it?

2) Are you aware of any plans to add the new Style feats introduced in Ultimate Combat to the list of Monk bonus feats, perhaps in an errata?

3) How scary/bada** would a Hellknight riding a fiendish T-rex be?

4) What kind of effects does the Eye of Abendego have on local, and even long distance, climates? I would imagine all that water it rains down would have to come from somewhere, or is it just supernatural in its entirety?

Thanks :D

*Edited* For spelling

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Alex_UNLIMITED wrote:

Hi James.

Crossbows in pathfinder seem too worse than the bows, but history teaches us that it is not like.
The only way to make crossbows really powerfull, such as bows, is the double crossbow (APG) in the hands of a crossbowman (fighter archetype, APG), preacher (inquisitor archetype, UM), urban barbarian (UC). He is the true sniper.
But the double crossbow needs some clarifications.
Need I to spend two times the money for deal fire damage with both bolts?
I think not, the double crossbow is the manyshot version for the crossbows. For this, I think that with vital strike I must apply two times this feat, because it's not a precision-based damage.
If it's true and I use devastating strike is the maximum bonus +6 for each bolt, or for the total (maximum +12)?
If I use a ranged domain power with a conductive double crossbow, have I to spent 4 uses of the power?
Therefore, was designed for this the double crossbow? I hope so, really.

Pathfinder is a game first and a history book 5th or 8th or 11th or something even lower. It's first goal is to present numerous options, and by making crossbows simple weapons, we give a pretty strong ranged weapon out in that category. In fact... you could argue that the fact that crossbows are simple weapons and thus available for a LOT more folks to use without the –4 penalty from non-proficiency that they're better than bows, simply because the number of people in any one region able to effectively use crossbows will FAR outweigh those who can use bows.

AKA: If you want a really "powerful" ranged character, don't use crossbows. But if you want the biggest army with the most ranged weapons with the smallest penalties for nonproficiency, use crossbows. Or if it's that big of a deal, switch crossbows and bows' positions in the martial/simple categories in your game.

Double crossbows (or attacks like sneak attack and vital strike that do the same) only add extra damage on one of the two bolts shot. Effectively, you're stacking all your extra stuff on crossbow bolt #1, while crossbow bolt #2 is just a plain vanilla extra crossbow bolt.

It's somewhat nonintuitive, I guess... but a double crossbow is more effective at increasing the damage output of someone who has NO special training in a crossbow than in the hands of someone who does, since in an untrained attacker, it effectively adds double the damage, whereas in the hands of someone who uses all sorts of magic and feats and the like, it only adds the one bolt's worth of damage to the other bolt's giant stack of dice.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squeakmaan wrote:

I have a few unrelated questions this time.

1) How common is the knowledge to perform Ioun Stone implantation? Do only a few people know about it, or could anybody who's skilled enough to make the checks try it?

2) Are you aware of any plans to add the new Style feats introduced in Ultimate Combat to the list of Monk bonus feats, perhaps in an errata?

3) How scary/bada** would a Hellknight riding a fiendish T-rex be?

4) What kind of effects does the Eye of Abendego have on local, and even long distance, climates? I would imagine all that water it rains down would have to come from somewhere, or is it just supernatural in its entirety?

Thanks :D

*Edited* For spelling

1) Among PCs, it's common knowledge. Among the rabble and peasants and other folks whose destiny fears to look beyond the pig farm, it's not common knowledge. Once someone tells you how to activate one, though, anyone capable of tossing a rock up into the air by their head can use them.

2) I am not. And adding new content to a book is NOT something we do with erratas.

3) That increases the Hellknight's awesome factor by 12,340%.

4) It turned two nations into swamps, for one thing—the majority of the rainfall it causes hits the Sodden Lands.

18,651 to 18,700 of 76,742 << first < prev | 369 | 370 | 371 | 372 | 373 | 374 | 375 | 376 | 377 | 378 | 379 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / >>Ask *James Jacobs* ALL your Questions Here!<< All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.